Who cares what Father Morris thinks?! If what the Council of Florence defined was true prior to Vatican II and/or the birth of Father Morris, then it is still true. That 2+2 = 4 is something that will never change; ditto for "submission to the Roman Pontiff" for eternal salvation. Remember, Lionel, a billion denials will never change one eternal truth, which means that if Father Morris ends up in eternal Hell, such will be his problem, not yours.

Yes of course they say all need to enter the Church with the baptism of water. On this we are all clear.

But what about those who go to Heaven with the baptism of desire followed with the baptism of water ?They are invisible for you. They are not exceptions to the dogma.But for some supporters of the SBC these cases could be visible .

So when the SSPX says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, implying that , these cases are visible no one from the SBC brings it to their attention.

Then they says that if there is just one case in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire it is a contradiction of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Another example of them considering these cases as being visible to us.

Till today no one from the SBC is willing to answer the TWO QUESTIONS.Why ?

Then you consider LG 16 as an exception to the dogma. So do the others.Another sign you consider these cases visible to us. Known in the present times.

Lionel A wrote:But for some supporters of the SBC these cases could be visible .

This statement is false. The SBC agrees that it is impossible to prove that a person was not sacramentally baptized, that such would be equivalent to "proving a negative." But, Lionel, prove to me that someone, say, Osama bin Laden, was never sacramentally baptized during his infancy.

The SBC agrees that it is impossible to prove that a person was not sacramentally baptized,

We agree that there are only persons with the baptism of water in Heaven and there are no known cases of the baptism of desire. These cases are invisible.

However there are so many reports on the internet in which the writers have assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma. The SBC has never even once said that the baptism of desire is hypothetical and invisible and so cannot be an exception to the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Then you and Rasha and others have always assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so you'll were critical of the Council. In other words those saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible to us and so the Council contradicts the dogma.

I have been asking two questions which were not being answered by the SBC. If they had answered those two questions with simple reason they would be saying that the baptism of desire is not known to us and so is not an exception to the dogma.

This error has not been corrected in the writings of priest apologists over the last 50 years even not in responses to Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture.

The baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the dogma so there could be cases in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire who are irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So if Osama bin Ladin was baptized and saved it would not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.Since this case would be judged and known only to God.

You're missing the point. Either a person is sacramentally baptized or he/she is not. Can't have it both ways! Right? Those individuals who are visibly baptized in water and who visibly submit to the Roman Pontiff are visible members of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church. Right? Whether they are in a state of grace or not is another question. Whether they end-up in Heaven or Hell is another question, also. Right?

It is certainly possible for someone to have been sacramentally baptized and not be a visible member of the Catholic Church. Osama bin Ladin is a prime case in point, at least hypothetically. Either bin Ladin was sacramentally baptized at some point in his infancy or he was not. Either happened or it did not. Right? If the former, bin Ladin had the inedible seal of Baptism forever placed on his soul. Whether he is in Heaven, Purgatory, or in Hell does not change that fact. Whether you, I, or anyone else knows about his sacramental Baptism does not change whether it happened or not. It either did or did not.

You're missing the point. Either a person is sacramentally baptized or he/she is not. Can't have it both ways! Right? Yes in general.

Those individuals who are visibly baptized in water and who visibly submit to the Roman Pontiff are visible members of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church. Right?

This is a reference to those who are on earth. Those in the present times. Yes!Whether they are in a state of grace or not is another question. Whether they end-up in Heaven or Hell is another question, also. Right?

Another question from what ?

It is certainly possible for someone to have been sacramentally baptized and not be a visible member of the Catholic Church. Osama bin Ladin is a prime case in point, at least hypothetically. Either bin Ladin was sacramentally baptized at some point in his infancy or he was not. Either happened or it did not. Right? If the former, bin Ladin had the inedible seal of Baptism forever placed on his soul. Whether he is in Heaven, Purgatory, or in Hell does not change that fact. Whether you, I, or anyone else knows about his sacramental Baptism does not change whether it happened or not. It either did or did not..

Okay so it is possible.I have been saying that a person can be saved even without the baptism of water if God wills it. God is not restricted to the Sacraments 'in certain circumstances.'

If he is in Heaven it will be known only to God and so it is irrelevant to the dogma.

We're going "round robin" here! Are you saying that I am a heretic if I say that there are no individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism? "None, nadda, zero..." Okay? "Absolutely no one in Paradise lacks the character of sacramental Baptism." How's that?! "What about the Old Testament saints?" you say?! Well, maybe Christ when He "descended into Hell" sacramentally baptized all of them while they were in the Limbo of the Fathers? Disprove that one!

Michael Voris' question to Fr.Jonathan Morris could also be directed to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the St.Benedict Centers

...and Michael Voris could also direct the question, he asked Fr.Jonathan Morris, to the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St.Benedict Centers,(SBC) USA.

On the surface it would appear that the question does not apply to the SBC since they have been saying that every body needs the baptism of water to go to Heaven and there are no exceptions. For them there are no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

Yet they never have corrected the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by telling them, that the baptism of desire etc are hypothetical and not visible to us.So they cannot be exceptions. Instead they have gone into theology.

Neither have they corrected the many writers on the Internet who assume the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.The SBC has never said that the baptism of desire is not visible to us. So we cannot name any exception.

The apologists Mons. Fenton and Fr.William Most have never considered the baptism of desire as irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the St.Benedict Centers have not noticed it.

If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said it was relevant to the dogma then it made a factual mistake.It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.

It is because the SBC have considered being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, as being visible, that they assume Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.

Michael Voris could ask them : Can you name someone saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16 )?Could you name someone saved with elements of sanctification (Lumen Gentium 8 ) ?These cases would have to visible for us if Vatican Council II is to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yes every needs to enter the Church, I would agree with the SBC and have done so all these years, but elements of sanctification and invincible ignorance are not visible to us and so they are not issue related to the dogma.On the de fide component of the dogma I agree with the SBC. I adnire them for holding firmly to the Faith and the truth all these years while we were in confusion.

Where does Vatican Council II contradict the Catholic Church's teaching on other religions and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if there are no visible exceptions ?

Then I am told by SBC supporters that if one claims there is even one person in Heaven saved without the baptism of water it contradicts the dogma.Yes, this would be true !-if the baptism of desire etc were visible. How can invisible cases contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

So when Fr.Jonathan Morris said on Fox News 'that not every one needs to be Catholic' Michael Voris asked him to name someone who does not have to be Catholic. Does he know anyone personally ? Is there such a case visible to him ? ( 'What Did he Just Say ? (March 1,2013 )ChurchMilitant TV.com video ).Fr.Jonathan Morris has not commented or apologised over the last few weeks.

Michael Voris could ask the SSPX and the FSSP the same question.That question could also be asked of the traditionalists at the St.Benedict Center in the dioceses of Worcester and Manchester,USA.

Basically, what he will be asking is: how can Vatican Council II be considered modernist, with regard to other religions and Christian communities, unless it is assumed that references to salvation in Vatican Council II are of cases visible to us in 2013.So then they would be known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They would also be known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. If there are no names then the Council does not contradict Tradition.The Council is not a break with the past.

We cannot name any 'good and holy' (NA) non Catholic saved in 2013 , we cannot name any one saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' (UR), we cannot name any one, known personally, saved with the 'seeds of the Word' etc.

If we agree that there are cases of sacramental Baptism in Water that are not visible to us, then we have no disagreement. In addition, if there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then these cases would, clearly, not be visible to us either.

As for Fr. Jonathan Morris, his comments are self-contradictory and absurd, which is why you should just dismiss him "as he is." After all, his interview is not the first instance where Fox News has broadcast disinformation to the public at large nor will it be the last!

If we agree that there are cases of sacramental Baptism in Water that are not visible to us, then we have no disagreement. In addition, if there are individuals in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, then these cases would, clearly, not be visible to us either.

That's the point, all who are in Heaven are not visible to us including those who have been declared saints by the Catholic Church.So if there is someone in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire it is not an issue with respect to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

As long as it is understood that those whom the Catholic Church has canonized are, in fact, in Paradise and that there is no doubt about this fact whatsoever, then I have no problem with what you are saying.